Roger Stone will get a mistrial, thanks to Tomeka Hart- and Donald Trump

@Greg:

Actually, No, Donald Trump has been pronounced immune from prosecution by the DoJ—unlike everyone else in the U.S.

But, as long as the accusations are FALSE… as they ALL have been, what difference does that immunity make? He is immune from prosecution for NOTHING. Once he actually commits a crime and is immune from prosecution of THAT, THEN get upset.

@Greg: There’s nothing to prosecute. You Democrats have proven that by coming up totally empty handed (and headed) despite spying, illegal surveillance, forcing false testimony, investigations and lies.

Let the 1100 deep state tools resign. We’ll replace them with citizens that actually want to defend justice and the Constitution instead of the globalist ideal.

The fundamental problem is that Trump’s base includes a lot of gullible, very easily manipulated people. He has no problem whatsoever telling them whatever they want to hear or throwing them whatever they think they want regardless of the long-term consequences for the country, because he plans on beating it out of Dodge before the sh-t hits the fan. He tipped his hand on that point a long time ago.

Trump is reportedly not worried about a massive US debt crisis as he’ll be out of office by then

@Greg: Yeah… WE elected an un-accomplished empty suit that hid his past solely on “Hope and Change. Oh, sure… WE’RE gullible.

@retire05:

Move on says, Comrade Greggie.

You should consider moving on, since Obama has been out of office for over three years. I suppose that’s your brain’s most current fixation point.

Once the curse of Donald Trump has been lifted and the Oval Office has been fumigated and aired out, I’d be happy never to hear his name mentioned again.

@Greg:

You should consider moving on, since Obama has been out of office for over three years. I suppose that’s your brain’s most current fixation point.

This nation has been suffering from the disaster that was Woodrow Wilson for over a hundred years. Not to mention the policies of FDR, that took away the freedom that Americans were guaranteed by our Constitution.

But you continue to blather on, still supporting the disaster that was Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. who will be revealed by history to be equally as unconstitutional as Wilson and FDR. You must be so proud.

When are you going to answer my question, coward?

@retire05: Why don’t Democrat’s move on? Oh, that’s right; THEY’RE whiny, crybaby sore losers and CAN’T.

FOX News, February 16, 2020 – Devin Nunes says Trump ‘has to tweet’ to combat ‘hard left’ media after Barr backlash

“What’s happening here with Barr, I think people need to understand that he’s cleaning up the mess from not only the Obama administration, but also the mess that was left with the whole Russia-gate fiasco,” Nunes told “Fox & Friends Weekend,” saying taxpayers paid tens of millions of dollars to fund then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team “that went chasing and trying to put us into a status of a permanent coup against the president of the United States.”

Nunes’ comments came days after Barr himself publicly swiped at Trump, declaring Thursday that the president’s tweets about Justice Department prosecutors and open cases “make it impossible for me to do my job.”
…
“I think what the attorney general said was very clear, that the president should be careful making comments about criminal investigations. One should not see that as anything other than but what it is,” Nunez said, adding that Barr “didn’t say to stop tweeting, because the fact of the matter is, with 90 percent of the media being hard left and really just working for the Democratic Party, the president has to be able to tweet.”

What it is, Dilbert, is Attorney General Barr saying Trump’s tweets are making it impossible for him to do his job.

@Greg: But wait, you and your party hate Barr and say he’s got to go. Isn’t Trump’s “interference” only helping your party?

All of these things just show how psychoanalytically challenged the Dems have become. Trump is making the media look like fools.

Durham Indictments coming. Stay tuned…

@Nathan Blue: greggie always find a way to get the conversation off on another track when he is wrong or lying. Mostly that is because he lacks the mental capacity to follow reasoning that is lead by facts. He gravitates towards conjecture rather than facts because that way he is not required to think.

@retire05: Greg is not well-rounded in his perceptions; he will only believe liberal propaganda, even when slapped upside the head with stark facts, as his response to my post reveals. I knew beforehand what his response would be; blind denial. Russia was going to help Hillary and Obama didn’t want to interfere with that; it just turned out she needed more help than they could provide.

@retire05, #120:

I’m happy to see you have finally publicly acknowledged that Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential election.

@kitt:
This so called Judge is a democrat operative and has total loyalty to One Barack Hussein Obama ! Her disgraceful act as a sitting Federal Judge has now been outed, her only viable way out is
TO RESIGN IMMEDIATELY . THIS BIASED , POLITICAL HACK must not be allowed to sentence Roger Stone, THAT WOULD BE THE
MOST EGREGIOUS ACT BY A SITTING JUDGE within the history
Of the Judicary . Of course this will be overturned by SCOTUS , and if Amy Berman Jackson DOES NOT RESIGN, she need be FIRED AFTER BEING CENSORED FOR JUDICIAL INCOMPETENCE.

@CARSRUS: Trump can end this farce at any time with an executive order pardon. There is a testing going on. Pop some corn and enjoy the next 2 months.

Pardons as bargaining chips…

February 19, 2020 – Donald Trump ‘offered Julian Assange a pardon if he denied Russia link to hack’

Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a pardon if he would say Russia was not involved in leaking Democratic party emails, a court in London has been told.

The extraordinary claim was made at Westminster magistrates court before the opening next week of Assange’s legal battle to block attempts to extradite him to the US, where he faces charges for publishing hacked documents. The allegation was denied by the former Republican congressman named by the Assange legal team as a key witness.

Assange’s lawyers alleged that during a visit to London in August 2017, congressman Dana Rohrabacher told the WikiLeaks founder that “on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange … said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC [Democratic National Committee] leaks.”

A few hours later, however, Rohrabacher denied the claim, saying he had made the proposal on his own initiative, and that the White House had not endorsed it.

“At no time did I talk to President Trump about Julian Assange,” the former congressman wrote on his personal blog. “Likewise, I was not directed by Trump or anyone else connected with him to meet with Julian Assange. I was on my own fact finding mission at personal expense to find out information I thought was important to our country.

“At no time did I offer Julian Assange anything from the president because I had not spoken with the president about this issue at all. However, when speaking with Julian Assange, I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him,” Rohrabacher added.

“At no time did I offer a deal made by the president, nor did I say I was representing the president.”

Astonishingly, Rohrabacher didn’t deny making the offer. Instead, he’s claiming that he made the offer without Trump’s knowledge, and would have discussed the pardon with Trump upon delivery of the goods.

Seriously, we’re supposed to believe that such an offer of presidential intervention was made without the President’s knowledge? We’re talking about Trump here, people—a guy who controls all such negotiations, and doesn’t take kindly to such presumptive behavior. And how could Rohrabacher not have been representing the President, since no one but the President would have had the power to issue such a pardon?

White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham told reporters: “The president barely knows Dana Rohrabacher other than he’s an ex-congressman. He’s never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject.”

“It is a complete fabrication and a total lie,” Grisham said. “This is probably another never-ending hoax and total lie from the DNC.”

Right. Rohrabacher is in league with the DNC, or part of Obama’s Deep State Conspiracy, or some such.

Rohrabacher wasn’t an ex-congressman in 2017. He was still a member of Congress at that point, and had been for the past 28 years.

Trump, however, invited Rohrabacher to the White House in April 2017 after seeing the then congressman on Fox TV defending the president.

In September 2017, the White House confirmed that Rohrabacher had called the then chief of staff, John Kelly, to talk about a possible deal with Assange, but that Kelly had not passed on the message to Trump. Rohrabacher confirmed that version of events on his blog on Wednesday.

“I told him that Julian Assange would provide information about the purloined DNC emails in exchange for a pardon. No one followed up with me including Gen Kelly and that was the last discussion I had on this subject with anyone representing Trump or in his Administration,” he wrote.

“Even though I wasn’t successful in getting this message through to the President I still call on him to pardon Julian Assange, who is the true whistleblower of our time.”

Assange appeared in court on Wednesday by videolink from Belmarsh prison, wearing dark tracksuit bottoms and a brown jumper over a white shirt.

Before Rohrabacher’s denial, district judge Vanessa Baraitser, who is hearing the case at Westminster, said the claim of a deal was admissible as evidence.

Until he was voted out of office in 2018, Rohrabacher was a consistent voice in Congress in defence of Vladimir Putin’s Russia, claiming to have been so close to the Russian leader that they had engaged in a drunken arm-wrestling match in the 1990s. In 2012, the FBI warned him that Russian spies were seeking to recruit him as an “agent of influence”.

The publication of emails hacked from the Hillary Clinton campaign helped perpetuate an aura of scandal around the Democratic candidate a few weeks before the 2016 election.

WikiLeaks put them online hours after Trump had suffered an apparent public relations disaster with the emergence of a tape in which he boasted of molesting women.

Assange is wanted in America to face 18 charges, including conspiring to commit computer intrusion, over the publication of US cables a decade ago.

He could face up to 175 years in jail if found guilty. He is accused of working with the former US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to leak hundreds of thousands of classified documents.

The extradition hearing is due to begin at Woolwich crown court on Monday, beginning with a week of legal argument. It will then be adjourned and continue with three weeks of evidence scheduled to begin on 18 May.

The decision, which is expected months later, is likely to be appealed against by the losing side, whatever the outcome.

Assange has been held on remand in Belmarsh prison since last September after serving a 50-week jail sentence for breaching his bail conditions while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

He entered the building in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over sex offence allegations, which he has always denied and were subsequently dropped.

Assange’s claims of a deal emerged a day after Trump granted clemency to a string of high-profile figures convicted on fraud or corruption charges, including the former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich and the “junk bond king” Michael Milken. Trump has not excluded pardoning Roger Stone, a former aide who was convicted in November of obstructing a congressional investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential race, and in particular for lying to investigators about his relationship with Assange and WikiLeaks.

Stone once boasted that he had dinner with Assange but later said the claim was a joke.

I don’t think I’ll be looking at you video.

@kitt: Trump did some pardons, so the fantasy machine cranked this up. Russia, Russia, Russia.

@kitt: And Bradley Manning, national traitor.

@Deplorable Me, #130:

You sure spend a lot of space on something that is unverified and denied.

Rohrabacher didn’t deny offering “a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange … said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks.” Rohrabacher’s response to the allegation was that Trump didn’t know about it; that he (Rohrabacher) had made the offer on his own initiative.

The claim that it’s “a complete fabrication and a total lie” came from Stephanie Grisham, the White House spokesperson. They really need to coordinate their b.s. better.

@Greg: What happened to the 84 to 108 months original proposed sentence? Your analytical capabilities greggie are lacking credibility!

February 24, 2020 – Judge Amy Berman Jackson rejects Roger Stone’s bid to disqualify her from the case

WASHINGTON – U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson denied Roger Stone’s motion to disqualify her, saying the move was merely an attempt to generate public interest in the case.

“If parties could move to disqualify every judge who furrows his brow at one side or the other before ruling, the entire court system would come to a standstill,” Jackson said. “At bottom, given the absence of any factual or legal support for the motion for disqualification, the pleading appears to be nothing more than an attempt to use the Court’s docket to disseminate a statement for public consumption that has the words ‘judge’ and ‘biased’ in it.”

Stone, whom Jackson sentenced to a little over three years in prison, sought to have the judge removed from the case because of what she said about jurors during Stone’s sentencing hearing last week. The judge scheduled a hearing Tuesday on his request for a new trial.

Stone, a longtime friend and ally of President Donald Trump, was convicted of lying to the House Intelligence Committee and obstructing its investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential race. He was also found guilty of urging a potential congressional witness to also lie.

In a long statement before she announced Stone’s sentence, Jackson said jurors “served with integrity” – a comment that defense attorneys say “undermines the appearance of impartiality.”

Jackson’s statement is “premature” because of the pending motion for a new trial that questions the integrity of one juror, Stone’s attorneys argued in a seven-page filing Friday, adding that the judge’s “ardent conclusion” shows an inability to reserve judgment on an issue she has not yet heard.

But in a six-page ruling Sunday evening, Jackson said her characterization “was entirely and fairly based” on her observations of the jurors through nine days of jury selection and trial. She said the jurors were “punctual and attentive” and engaged in “thoughtful communications” with her during their deliberations.

The judge said she has been fair to Stone since he was indicted in January 2019, taking issues his attorneys raised “seriously,” ruling “with care and impartiality,” explaining her reasoning in detail, and scrupulously ensuring his right to a fair trial. During jury selection, Jackson said she struck 58 potential jurors for cause, in part in response to Stone’s attorneys motions.

Stone was allowed to remain out on bond “even after he took to social media to intimidate the Court, after he violated conditions imposed by the Court,” Jackson said, referring to a gag order preventing Stone from speaking publicly about the case, “after he was convicted at trial, and after he was sentenced to a term of incarceration.”
…

The rule of law, as it is intended to work.

@Greg: Democrats use recusal as a weapon to try and get opposition political opponents out of the issue. But, Democrats NEVER recuse themselves. NEVER.

Jackson has conducted the entire trial (well, ALL her trials) as a biased political hack. I wonder who is surprised that she won’t do the right and proper thing and step aside and allow someone is not on the DNC payroll to conduct a FAIR trial.

During sentencing, Jackson went off on a politically-charged rant about how Stone was “covering up” for Trump, something that was no part of the charges or the sentencing. She blocked exculpatory evidence from being presented, put a gag order on Stone so his persecutors could tear him apart at will but he could not respond. She allowed prosecutors to include bitter partisan liberals to be on the jury and block anyone with any Republican connection to be excused.

This guarantees Trump will pardon Stone, which is probably the goal, since then whiny, bitter, sore loser crybaby Democrats can bitch about THAT.

Compare the complete lack of due process Stone got compared to the fair trial scumbag Weinstein got. Democrats have no respect for the rule of law.

@Deplorable Me, #143:

Trump will pardon Stone because Trump will want to demonstrate his personal authority and power are greater than the authority and power of the law and our legal system. In fact, Stone is guilt as charged, and feels no remorse whatsoever for his criminal behavior.

He’ll pardon Stone because his conviction was a political vendetta, a travesty of justice and because Jackson should be removed from the bench and disbarred.

So says Donald and his echo chamber. The man is an inveterate liar who has half of the country bamboozled or hypnotized. Roger Stone was found guilty by a jury. He actually did the things he was convicted of doing—things that can’t go unchallenged, unless we want our entire political system to become hopelessly corrupted.

Trump has personally attacked not only the judge but individual jurors, condemning the process as it was underway—something no president should ever do, as it’s a serious attack on our justice system itself. The man is totally unfit for office. He can’t rise to the elevated level it requires, so he’s pulling it all down to his own level.

@Greg:

Trump has personally attacked not only the judge but individual jurors, condemning the process as it was underway—something no president should ever do,

You mean like tainting investigations with comments like “The Cambridge Police acted stupidly” and “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon”? Or sending the FBI to Ferguson, Missouri to take over an investigation from the Ferguson Police Department?